I don't think it logical to persecute someone on the basis of what you think might happen fifty or one hundred years hence. We live in the present, and the reality is that even five year predictions have great uncertainty. For example, the current uncertainty relating to coronavirus has caused considerable panic. A pandemic could cause far more harm than the prophecies of climate catastrophists. What is pertinent is that an understanding of the disease itself is of far greater importance than complex predictive models with unknown variables.

ALTRAV,

You say,

" ..... if I don't respond, it is taken as though I agree with them and their comments."

I don't think the looney left would ever make the mistake of thinking you would ever agree with them. The best way to deal with these loud mouthed minorities is often to ignore them.

Remember the recent election on climate change, when Shorten threatened the electorate with the same rubbish being spewed out here by the usual suspects, plus a few new ones. Remember how the electorate rejected his nonsense. Now, Albanese, too thick or too mad to get the message, is threatening Australians with the same thing or worse.

Have faith in Morrison's "sensible Australians" in the real world.

Science is best approached dispassionately and from a neutral perspective.

I have no vested interest either way. And neither do I seek to attach belief in the absence of fact. I neither believe nor disbelieve but rather on appraisal of the available evidence have formed the view that the cream of the world's scientists make a compelling case.

To "speak" science ALTRAV, you need to cite studies. All of the evidence from the scientists is publicly available in the form of citable scientific studies on line. This is not the same as someone expressing an "opinion" on YouTube.

If one's mind has not been trained in this manner in some way or another, it is easy to become bamboozled and misled by pseudo-science and as Runner knows, it becomes a case of:

"The blind leading the blind."

And that's part of the problem. It usually comes down to people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo who want to hang onto any little thing to support their view.

It is conspiratorial nonsense to think that the worlds scientists have a hidden agenda. With the tools available, they have studied the problem and formulated a view.

That is not to say that they always get it right ie in the aftermath of WWII with a sudden crisis in heart attacks and strokes, medical scientists were put on the job. And, what they came up with was "Cholesterol" - the big vein and artery blocking goo.

But at that time, the measuring equipment at their disposal was not sufficient to deduce that there is healthy cholesterol which we need, and unhealthy cholesterol which we do not, as we have come to understand with the advent of better tools, understanding and equipment.

As for the Greens, with all their failings and inability to martial themselves to the extent of being able to offer viable alternative economic policies ie if we shut down coal, we'll push up this industry and that and migrate all those redundant workers and unemployed.

If they had of had greater input at the time of the boom you would all have energy positive houses now and no longer need to pay for electricity or gas.

Is that so bad?

(you're being screwed ding-a-lings)

Ever been to a country that truly suffers from fossil fuel pollution? Is that what you want?

Instead, you would be contributing to producing an energy surplus for the benefit of grand projects ie if the sea is risin, why not desalinate it and pump it to the cockies in the dry zone?

But the issue is that far too many people get paid way too much for doing way too little. And how sick are we of hearing the ongoing incessant whining of those who deserve more. It's not that we do not have a heart for them, but they come as beggars and at best only ever get scraps from the table.

As as you understand, if some people are to get more, then other people must get less. But when if ever do we hear any public debate about who should get less. It is as if the pathetic saps in the media are muzzled.

But doesn't such a one sided false debate tell you something?

It was a Greens report that verified that more than 800 billion dollars a year goes offshore to the international beneficiaries of this nations resource sector? And a not insignificant chunk of it to some filthy pom in london and other dead beat, do nothing share holders.

Is that you what you want?

Or would you do as I and relegate international interests to a niche and favor local start ups?

As Runner understands visa vi the Church, and the same applies to the Greens, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

NASA - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE - VITAL SIGNS OF THE PLANET:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

" ... Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. ... "

..

" ... SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International Academies: Joint Statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10 ... "

..

Now, c'mon now ALTRAV et al.

Do you want to discuss serious science or would you prefer to express the half-witted ramblings of some peanut on YouTube?

rEPRUSu, I'm sorry to have to tell you, BUT, within the text of your submission lies the very point which has led this debate.
Just these few seemingly innocuous words carry the substance of the whole weight of the implication of it's message; "It is LIKELY that MOST of the warming..........
If they had said; "It is without question or doubt, that THE warming is..........
Then I would have to reconsider.
But even then, the mountain of comments even in videos, (it's merely the modern medium of getting to more people on the ground) that are coming forward, unsolicited, has to be noted and allowed to weigh in to the debate or argument on GW.
BTW, those same people you malign ARE in fact experts and scientists.
They declare their status and position usually at the beginning of, (or near), the transmission of the video.
There are now more than enough antagonists and detractors to begin doubting or at least, questioning this GW claim and it's veracity.
Don't forget, we have said, we would not disagree with the fact that the planet is warming, but only with the fact that someone decided to attach or create a false cause, in the statement that we humans are to blame for this current level and subsequent increase in CO2.
This is a falsehood, a lie, a egregiously and game changing lie.
Had they just said, "the planet is warming, but it's OK, it's only the warming phase, and it will revert to cooling in time", no one would have given it a second thought, BUT, add in something which suddenly gives this statement a threatening connotation, and BINGO we have a world panic on our hands.
And it is this panic that they are relying on to muster the people under their wings so as to foster an air of trust so the public will submit to whatever they say to stop this evil thing from killing them.
I'm actually not beyond thinking this current pandemic smacks awfully like something these bastards would orchestrate.
It sounds far fetched, but try disproving it!